Mar. 25. 1854.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



275 



FACTITIOUS PEDIGREES '. DIXON OF BEESTON. 



(Vol. ix., p. 221.) 



The inquiry of Mr. R. W. Dixon is one that I 

 feel should not remain unanswered ; and a few 

 circumstances that I can detail will be sufficient 

 to prove that his brother Mr. J. H. Dixon only 

 exercised a just discretion in rejecting the in- 

 formation offered by William Sidney Spence. 



On 4th March, 1848 (a few months, therefore, 

 earlier than the letter which has been quoted), a 

 communication was forwarded to me by Mr. 

 Spence so similar, as to warrant the supposition 

 that a set form was kept on hand to be copied in 

 different applications with such variations as each 

 case might demand, though even then a discre- 

 pancy has crept in that would render the evidence 

 suspicious. 



The first paragraph is the same, except that 

 Mr. Spence states he was engaged by the " widow 

 of Sir John Cotgreave," instead of the " sister." 



In the second the pedigree is said to be the 

 "work of Handle Holme, 1672, from documents 

 by William Camden," instead of the work of " the 

 great Camden." Monsons, of course, are substi- 

 tuted instead of Dixons. Four generations from 

 Sir John Monson temp. Edward III., instead 

 of five generations from Ralph Dixon temp. 

 Henry VI. And this Sir John is slain fighting 

 under Lord Audley at the battle of Poictiers, 

 1356, as a counterpart to Ralph Dixon, slain at 

 the battle of Wakefield, 1460. 



The third paragraph is word for word the 

 same, except that, to be consistent with the de- 

 scents, four shields with sixteen quarterings are 

 offered instead of five shields with twelve. 



Lady Cotgreave is to vouch for the authenticity 

 instead of Miss Cotgreave. 



The quarterings promised in the next paragraph 

 are only partially the same, and the conclusion 

 merely differs in wording by the substitution of 

 the names of " Sir John Monson " and " his mo- 

 ther Elinor, daughter and coheir of Sir John 

 Sutton, de Sutton and Congleton," in place of 

 " Ralph Dixon and his mother Maude, daughter 

 and coheiress of Sir Ralph Fitz Hugh," &c. 



I acknowledge that from the first I did not be- 

 lieve a word of this ingenious tale ; in fact I was 

 rather an unfortunate subject for Mr. Spence's 

 purpose, having for years made the early history 

 of my family my especial study ; but having a 

 friend resident at Birkenhead (a clergyman), I 

 applied to him out of curiosity to find out some- 

 thing of my informant, who at least had shown 

 some ingenuity. The answer was by no means in 

 favour of Mr. Spence ; and one fact was decidedly 

 ascertained, that he neither lived nor was known in 

 Priory Place, whence his letters were dated. I 

 answered his letter, declining to give the remu- 

 neration of five pounds which he had asked ; and 



on taxing him with the falsity of his residence, he 

 said he had his letters left there for convenience. 



Mr. Dixon must now himself judge of the 

 credit to be placed on the informant. As for the 

 information in my own case, it bore internal 

 proofs of being worthless ; and if such a pedigree 

 as is described should exist, I feel assured it is not 

 the work of Camden, but more probably of a 

 cotemporary, of rather discreditable notoriety 

 among genealogists, of the name of Dakyns. 



Monson. 



Gatton Park. 



I can give no information on the Dixon family, 

 but having some years ago received a letter from 

 the same Mr. Spence, with an account of my own 

 family, every word of which is not only entirely 

 without authority, but a gross invention opposed 

 to the facts, I thought Mr. Dixon might like to 

 know that Mr. Spence founds the romance in 

 question on a " Pedigree of Cotgreave de Har- 

 grave, the work of the celebrated Randle Holme, 

 anno 1672, from documents compiled by that 

 learned antiquary William Camden, in the year 

 1598," evidently the same veracious authority 

 with that mentioned in the letter to Mr. Dixon. 



Ev. Ph. Shirley. 



Eatington Park, Stratford-on-Avon. 



The following note will, I think, satisfy your 

 correspondent R. W. Dixon that the letter of 

 William Sidney Spence which you inserted for 

 him was an imposture, and that Mr. J. H. Dixon 

 was not without reason in rejecting the informa- 

 tion offered. 



A friend of mine, assuming descent from "a 

 good old " family of the same name, which he was 

 unable to prove, received, about the same time aa 

 Mr. Dixon did, a communication from Mr. Wil- 

 liam Sidney Spence to precisely the same effect, 

 and having no cautious brother to consult, readily 

 took the bait, and paid some pounds for a specious 

 pedigree, setting forth his "distinguished pro- 

 genitors," with their armorial bearings, &c, pur- 

 porting to be authenticated as a true copy of one 

 in Miss Cotgreave's possession under that lady's 

 own hand. The information so received being 

 subsequently submitted to a genealogical friend, 

 some doubt was excited of its genuineness in 

 proving too much •> and an inquiry, which I made 

 through a correspondent in Cheshire, tending to 

 confirm this suspicion, a reference was had to Miss 

 Cotgreave herself, when it turned out that the 

 whole was an ingenious fabrication. Mr. Spence 

 was then dead, and my friend, whose name I do 

 not mention, as the subject is rather a sore one, 

 was obliged to be content with the practical ex- 

 perience he had bought. 



The probability is, that whenever Mr. Spence 

 read in Burke's Landed Gentry that Mr. A. or 



